Posted on 09/07/2011 12:43:45 PM PDT by wolfcreek
It’s a legend of Texas politics and a hatchet for foes of Gov. Rick Perry, front-running candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. The story goes that as a Democratic legislator, Perry chaired Democrat Al Gore’s presidential campaign in Texas.
The legend has been aired routinely for more than 13 years, originally by a Democratic opponent of Perry’s, and in news reports—all but unchallenged by Perry. Even we at PolitiFact Texas repeated the story as fact.
Of late, there’s a July 16, 2011, reference to Perry chairing the Gore effort in Time magazine, and an Aug. 29, 2011, item in The New Yorker magazine saying Perry "became a Republican after shouldering the thankless task of running Al Gore's 1988 Presidential campaign in Texas."
This week, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, likewise bidding for president, premiered an advertisement calling Perry "Al Gore’s Texas cheerleader."
Cheerleader, maybe.
But interviews with political players in Texas and Tennessee and news articles from 1988 have convinced us that, although Perry endorsed Gore, he was not his Texas chairman.
(Excerpt) Read more at politifact.com ...
“Actually, in 1988 it would have been George H.W. Bush.”
Keep trying. That’s still wrong. AlGore never ran against H.W. Bush.
Here’s the answer. Perry supported AlGore (a southern dem) in the democratic primary against Dukakis (Northeastern dem).
You may want to evaluate keeping the first part of your screen name, if you are attempting to say that Perry was supportive of Clinton’s HC plan by posting that piece from Wiki.
In reality, Perry sent the form letter well before any meetings had taken place (and before any plan was created) to state that it was commendable to take on the task of reform, and to suggest the areas of reform that would be in the interests of Texas. It made no comment on any specific proposal.
Isdn’t it interesting that DumocRATs and Perry haters use the SAME LIE!
Mm...nope.
“You need to get your history straight. Reagan wasn’t running for President in 1988.”
Perry worked to destroy Reagan’s legacy by trying to elect Al Gore to succeed him. He was a Jimmy Carter democrat.
I remind you that Perry only switched parties in 1989. He supported Carter, Mondale and Dukakis.
Perry is unfit to be president.
You may want to evaluate keeping the first part of your screen name, if you are attempting to say that Perry was supportive of Clinton’s HC plan by posting that piece from Wiki.
In reality, Perry sent the form letter well before any meetings had taken place (and before any plan was created) to state that it was commendable to take on the task of reform, and to suggest the areas of reform that would be in the interests of Texas. It made no comment on any specific proposal.
paulnut whodat doesn’t give two hoots in hell about truth or facts, he’s just following the little nosepickers orders to smear Perry on every thread.
I DO NOT hate Perry. Would you please show me specifically in this blog where anybody states for a certainty what Perry did or did NOT do for algore? Then I will know what is or is NOT a LIE.
Gore wasn’t the nominee.
paulnut whodat doesn’t give two hoots in hell about truth or facts, he’s just following the little nosepickers orders to smear Perry on every thread.
It is a good starting point to find out what really is accurate. Most of the information is cited, as well.
The fact that anyone can edit the Wikipedia article should add to the confidence of it being accurate, because upon reading something that one knows to be false, who would leave the falsity without correcting it. I would be more likely to believe as false an article that is composed by one author and has no option for edition by the public at large. The idea behind Wikipedia is that the true accurate information will be the only information that remains. This holds especially true for Wikipedia articles that are read by many people; such as articles on presidential candidates. This is also the reason why just about every statement in Perry’s Wikipedia article has a citation.
I agree that there is a possibility that inaccuracies exist, but I also think it acceptable to use Wikipedia as a starting point for an investigation into finding the truth.
This whole thread was meant to make you feel better and quit believing lies.
If it doesn’t help, there are drugs available that will.
Guess the ronpaulnut siren call went out as we seem to be picking up the usual herd of PDS coyotes.
Let see what your background was in the late 80s.
Ever make a mistake or change your mind?
Dude, the article states that this *rumor/legend* has been pushed by political opponents and Liberals for years.
Politifact.com is a fairly left leaning organization who themselves, having printed this lie, have admitted this is BS.
Wikipedia is whatever people want to print.
Not a blog written by some guy in his mom's basement, but an investigative journalism site run by a major media organization. They're presenting what they claim to be facts. If they're wrong, I welcome your refutation.
Or was that just your excuse for refusing to read the article?
Show their desperation.
That's fair enough, but then you should probably specify which part of the entry you are referencing, so others can determine if you are referring to an entry that is false. For example, the entry you posted refers to Perry being the chairman of Al Gore's Texas campaign - as we can now see that part is in error.
If you look a little more closely, you'll see that the page you linked to is an autogenerated aggregator page which includes the Wikipedia entry on the topic as well as wall posts about the topic by people on your Friends list.
In what way would such a page be "scrubbed"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.